People do good because they are
human,
not because they are religious!

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

LIBERAL RELIGIONISTS PAVE WAY FOR FUNDAMENTALISTS

Liberal religionists are not the nice people they seem to
be. They are chronological snobs. They think that because we know
better than people thousands of years ago that we can be sceptical of some of
their scriptures tales and even doubt the morals and doctrines of an ancient
religion. Liberals all think they have the right to interpret ancient
religions and scriptures through modern eyes! That is dishonest and insulting.
And the idea "we have moved on from the superstitions and errors of the past" is
nonsense. Yesterday's errors always come back tomorrow in a new outfit.

We regard religions that say God want you to kill or do other kinds of harm to
others as evil. We call such religions extremist. We think of religions that
don’t advocate such activities as moderate or liberal. But even moderate or
liberal religion is evil. There are several reasons for saying this.

#The liberal cares more about feeling happy through being spiritual (whatever
that means) than about sin or anything else and has a God who is soft on sin
too. That could be dangerous.
#The liberal likes to blame man for many of the rules in religion that
purportedly came from God - but if religion is that man-made how can the liberal
expect it to be peaceful? Man is not all good and his religions will not be all
good either. The liberal enables lies and hypocrisy.
#If you are a hypocrite then get labelled a liberal and nobody will notice and
they will support you. Some religious terrorists may be hypocrites too.
#Terrorists and sectarians are recruited from religious liberal families too.
#Liberals still vote religious fundamentalists into power and enable their laws.
Liberals enable the odd scenario in the USA where parents can neglect a sick
child which dies and avoid prison as long as they say they tried to help the
child with prayer. Not all those parents are mad fundamentalist fanatics - they
are often seen as moderate but for their attitude that calling the doctor is a
sin. Liberals make these laws that give special treatment to these people.
#Liberals hate each other and some fundamentalists just as much as
fundamentalists can hate each other.
#Liberal Christianity distributes the Bible despite its Jesus and its God
endorsing violence in it. Despite its saying it does not believe it all, it is
still honouring a violent book. The right approach is to throw away any book
that advocates violence and that may influence people badly - no reluctance and
no buts. Liberal religions talk about peace is hypocrisy.
#The liberal admits that it is only his or her opinion that this part of the
scripture is bad or wrong. That is not a strong protest against the errors and
lies and evil laws of God in the Bible.
# All liberals tend to keep their liberalism to themselves a lot. An Anglican
bishop who thinks Jesus sinned will not crow about it. Thus they are not as
unsupportive of fundamentalism as they boast.
#Liberals enable the plague of moral and religious relativism which is bad and
sometimes worse than other forms of fundamentalism. The relativist just cares
about having an opinion and does not care if it is fact or not.
#Liberal religion says we must be very libertarian because nothing is black and
white and is extremely complicated. Liberal religion encourages religious
devotion despite the fact that you worry that this devotion involves supporting
something that is in some way harmful or untruthful. We can be sure that ISIS
devotees rationalise the acts of violence they carry out by saying that it is
okay to have reservations but to go ahead and act because it is complicated
anyway. Conservative religion in fairness is fonder of "Okay you don't have all
the answers but commit anyway" than liberalism.
#Liberal religion denies that any religion is either true or false - this
enables fundamentalist religion.
#Liberal religion tends to lie that anything that does bad is not really acting
as a religion. This in fact implies that all religions are infallible!
Infallibility claims pave the fundamentalist's way.
#All religion is partly fundamentalist at least.
#All religion paves the way for worse fundamentalism.
#Christianity is intrinsically fundamentalist.
#The God concept is inseparable from fundamentalism. It is always fundamentalist
to believe in God or to say he exists. If God exists he deserves to be put
first. The only way we can be sure we are doing that is by doing good at great
sacrifice and personal suffering for all eternity.

Liberal Christians are fundamentalists as much as conservative fundamentalists
are. The only difference is in what they choose to be fundamentalist about. What
is called moderate or liberal religion is fundamentalist in some matters. It is
not the alternative to fundamentalism that it pretends to be.

Religion that is mere opinion but which makes demanding claims would be a form
of bigotry. You cannot tell people to form the opinion that gay people can be
killed. An opinion is something one should be free to agree with or disagree
with. You cannot tell anybody to agree with your opinion. You cannot advocate
serious damage in the service of an opinion.

Liberal religion is so full of uncertainty and singing from the same hymn sheet
as society that it can only make people want to be fundamentalists.

Religious liberalism is not the great defender of truth and liberty and
tolerance it pretends to be.

Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong is a religious cherry-picker who pretends
all religions at core are good. Armstrong is trying to manipulate
fundamentalists into toning it down but she is in fact a fundamentalist herself.
She goes as far as to say Christianity and Islam etc are about seeking a sense
of transcendence and of being strong enough to face evil and get through it and
that is what they mean by God. When they talk about God they do not mean a
being that exists or may not exist but are talking about their search. The
Catholic Church under St Thomas influence did and probably largely still does
understand God as a true or false issue. What business has she defining what
religion is doing or telling it she knows what it teaches even when it disagrees
with her? Then she sets about calling all who contradict her fundamentalists or
fundamentalist sympathisers.

Let us consider Catholic liberals.

They don't take the Church seriously when it says it cannot change. The
assertion by the Church that it protects the doctrines taught by Christ and the
apostles and cannot change them is a doctrine. The liberal rejects the basic
Catholic doctrine that Jesus left the Church under his protection so that we
would know what was his doctrine and what was not.

To apologise for hurting somebody does not mean you admit you did wrong.

Liberals reject that as if doctrine is bad but they make it a doctrine that it
is wrong!

Liberals pick and choose what they want to believe out of their scriptures and
they still say they are the Word of God. Why don't they edit them and issue a
shortened version without the errors? If the miraculous bits are lies then why
keep them in?

Liberals form their religious opinions without even looking at the case for
Church doctrines. They would at least need to have academic qualifications that
are relevant or experience. But they plod on without them. They must be
infallible just like that! They don't even need to research!

They want to turn the Church into a society based on mere opinions. Nobody can
take it seriously. If you have the right to say you are Catholic while believing
unCatholic things then why stop there? Why not argue that you can set up a
Catholic parish without the authorisation of the Church? If the Church authority
is misguided on doctrine then how can it be trustworthy in anything else? Indeed
setting up an authorised parish would show far more trust in the Church than
rejecting its doctrines would.

They are not afraid to say they want gay marriage and women priests in the
Church when they could say that the doctrine of Jesus dying for sinners and
rising again for them so wonderful. This is about social and political agenda
not religion.

They preach that we must not offend Muslims or Jews etc. But they are not afraid
to offend Catholics by saying the Church should change and allow gay marriage
etc.

They deny people the right to join a religion because it will not change with
the times. A religion that changes to suit the fashions does not suit any
reasonable person. It is one thing to treat man's word as God's word but it is
far crazier to do this when man's word is always changing. That is shameless
idolatry.

Suppose religious faith is good. The religious person who wants to replace it
with opinions is then taking away something good from the believer.

The fundamentalist can go to a huge effort to give his fundamentalist system
some coherence and credibility. The liberal does not worry too much about the
coherence and the credibility of his own version of faith. The liberal is far
more dangerous than the fundamentalist. Better to be a rabid fundamentalist who
cares about truth and honesty and who will change his mind if the evidence is
good enough then to be a wishy washy liberal who cares about none of these
things. The liberal is more dangerous in the sense of being more irrational than
the fundamentalist. The liberal does not care if he gives people encouragement
in bad thinking habits that can lead to great error and damage.

The fundamentalist who thinks he knows his belief is true is far more rational
than the liberal who thinks his opinion is knowledge. There is hope for people
who try to be rational but none for those who are fans of liberal shit. They
only make chaos.

The Catholic liberal regards his own opinions as sacred but may bitterly oppose
and be intolerant of what he terms the Vatican line - what he perceives as the
opinions of the Church. But this is inconsistent. Despite himself he is saying,
"My opinions are sacred and so are the Vatican's worst opinions."

It is the height of arrogance to act as if your opinions are sacred - opinions
by their nature can never be sacred. They invite others to consider them but not
take them seriously unless there is solid evidence that they are right. When you
are calling something your opinion you are telling others to correct it if it is
wrong. A sacred opinion is a dogma. The liberals have their sacred opinions and
they hypocritically abominate dogma. They are just fundamentalists who happen to
be better charmers than the rabid angry and fearful fundamentalists.

Its a short step from, "My religious opinions are sacred and I follow them even
if they cause misery to others" to "The Bible's opinions are sacred so I have
the right to murder gay people for God said we must stone them to death." Both
liberals and fundamentalists think their opinions are sacred even if they lead
to suffering for themselves or those who they influence.

Liberals may say its intolerant and arrogant of the pope to say he knows God
exists. Or that he knows gay marriage is wrong. Or that he knows contraception
does more harm than good. They say he does not know these things. But just
because they don't know them does not mean he doesn't know them. What gives them
the right to tell another person what that person knows and does not know? They
boast what great fans of respect and tolerance and freedom they are!

Religion as a community can only be as dysfunctional as society is. For example,
a violent society produces violent religions. Religion is a great even then for
it may argue that its evil has divine approval.

A default is the position that should be automatically taken by a person who
hasn’t decided what position to take. Moderate and liberal religion denies the
default doctrine that atheism must be assumed to be true until shown otherwise.
Thus it is fundamentalist in that sense - it is obscurantist and intolerant.

Is it wise to encourage belief in God when most believers adhere to dangerous
religion based on God? Not if there is a strong chance that belief in God will
lead them to facilitate such religion or join it. God is that by definition must
be put before all things - that is behind moderate religion and extreme
religion. They have that in common. Thus the belief is intrinsically extremist
and its only luck that stops that extremism from breaking out all the time.

Prayer has to put God’s will first in order to be acceptable to him. If it
doesn’t it is blasphemous. But we know that people matter not religion or God
which means prayer, if it is morally acceptable, is only acceptable if it is
human-centred.

Prayer is always a fundamentalist activity. The praying person is urged to see
that prayer works which really means that the person is being asked to remember
the times it seemed to work and to forget the times it didn’t or to pretend that
it. Prayer is training in fundamentalism. It is its bedrock.

A person cannot win with prayer. If it is devotion to God, it is fanaticism or
putting faith before people. If it is not, it is an attempt to fool a God and to
expect help from him when you don’t respect him. Either is essential fanaticism.

Religious liberalism says it forbids fanaticism. Is that why it endorses prayer
which is seen as based on a feel good kind of attitude. But its fanatical to try
and expect people to please God with prayers that they only say to feel good.
Its insulting a God who may punish so its fanatical. Its fanaticism to invite
punishment.

Moderate religion has no right to criticise its members if they become a bit
extreme or very extreme. It does the same thing itself so it is in no position
to forbid or criticise. Thus it indirectly sanctions such crimes.

Battered Partners need to be told that the abusive partner will do it again
“because that is who he is”. You can’t say that if you believe in love the
sinner and hate the sin. Both liberals and fundamentalists claim to hate sin.
The only difference is that the liberal tends to hate sins that are clearly
anti-social such as violence and rape. The fundamentalist will hate far more
things than that. Even a person entertaining doubts about his faith will be seen
as doing something hateful. A person staying away from Church services will also
be seen as doing something despicable. The liberal will tend to argue that
attending Church is not a big deal.

Moderate and liberal religion likes to pretend to believe that you can love the
sinner and hate the sin. The members however complain that if their beliefs are
criticised they are being offended. They take it personally when their beliefs
are criticised. Yet they expect the sinner to be happy that other people hate
his sins! If criticising the beliefs is criticising the believer, then how can
we love the sinner and hate the sin?

Self-deception in religion is very common and very powerful. We deceive
ourselves only so that we can deceive others. Our love is set up to border on a
transformation into rabid hate. If the most rigid and inflexible fundamentalist
is engaging in self-deception - that self-deception will be uncontrollable.
Because it is irrational, he might easily become a self-deceiving liberal. For
example, he may end up arguing that gay marriage must be taught by the Bible for
it says God is love. Both liberals and fundamentalists are using the human power
to lie to oneself to create their religious systems. You need to lie to yourself
to be a fundamentalist so a liberal lying to herself or himself is a
fundamentalist too of a different kind.

Some say we must not criticise religion because doing so leads to arguments and
hatred and rage. That is admitting that religion is really passive-aggressive
when it is peaceful. The nastiness of religion will erupt when the trigger
button is pressed.

Liberals and atheists tend to agree that we must always work for the greatest
happiness or well-being of the greatest number of people. We might disagree on
how to put this into practice, but we share the principle. This is a thoroughly
religion free ethic. Thus religion is necessarily fundamentalist for it
disagrees that it is non-religious in itself. It may put a religious spin on it
but that is actually changing the principle.

Moderate Christianity makes very big claims but provides weak evidence in
support of them. It tries to manipulate people’s emotions so that the people
will imagine they believe the doctrines are true when they merely feel that they
are true. Fundamentalists do exactly the same thing. It is the reason we call
them fundamentalist. Moderate Christians are only nominally moderate. They are
really hypocrites.

Moderate Christianity is detested by those whom it calls Fundamentalist
Christians. Moderate Christianity is really fundamentalist when it acts as if it
has the right to exist and cause offence like that. It really should go the
whole way and get itself declared extremist. Moderate Christianity is really
something unnecessary and an extra excuse to cause disagreements and rancour as
if we don’t have enough. Secularists are hated by Fundamentalists but as
Secularists have the default position they have a right to exist and to teach.

True secularism is the only thing that can never be fundamentalist. Thus
anything that varies from it is fundamentalism - no matter how liberal or
reasonable it pretends to be.

If there are Christian theologians who honestly look at rational arguments
against the faith (I said if - this is hypothetical) it is sometimes said that
they are not dogmatic, not proud and not arrogant and not know-alls who
misguidedly think they know it all. But the same cannot be said of priests and
laity who are not theologians. They do not have the same knowledge and yet they
insist on obedience to a revealed faith and are proud of it. They are definitely
fundamentalists.

Liberal theologians such as Hans Kung used arguments similar to the fundamental
Christians to defend belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Read his On
Being a Christian. The liberal is always fundamentalist in some way.

"Liberal" Christians - or is it Liberal "Christians"? - pick and choose out of
the Bible what they want to believe which is usually the nice and saccharine
stuff. Why should anybody pick what they pick? What not take the nastier bits as
inspirational? Most people believe the world is red in tooth and claw and you
have to be ruthless to survive. They would be happy to be edified by the Bible
tales of this blood-drinking God who commands murder and genocide. The liberals
have no right to criticise those who do that. They indirectly give them
permission and encouragement to do so though they would prefer to forget that.
They cannot say that Christian terrorists for example are not representative of
the Christian religion. The Bible advocates religious violence so they are
representative.

Fundamentalists don't have impressive evidence for their cocksure creed being
true. Liberals have even less and so are really no better. Their system makes no
sense because they end up making very big claims on slender or no evidence. For
example, they might say that the virgin birth is just a metaphor for Jesus
having been sent by God as the supreme teacher. But because they don't take too
much of the Bible that seriously they end up with the same attitude as the
fundamentalists which is that reason and science must be sacrificed in the
interest of faith. Liberals are just fundamentalists with more popular and
fashionable beliefs than the conservatives or fundamentalists. The liberal is
worse than the fundamentalist if the liberal turns his speculation into
doctrine. The liberal only guesses that the virgin birth is a metaphor. The
fundamentalist then is entitled to guess that Jesus is okay with him slaying
heretics.

God is an extraordinary claim. The evidence is poor. You need tremendous
evidence to justify such a huge claim. Religion gives useless evidence. By
implication then the God concept goes hand in hand with fundamentalism.

Moderate religion may teach that Hell is possible and that miracles happen -
these are very serious claims and they are not followed up with much proof or
evidence.

Moderate religion has little or no concern for evidence for the faith it
propounds. It tends to care about the good results of believing in God and
ignore evidence for or against his existence. Anything that has no concern for
evidence is fundamentalist. Also, fundamentalists are fundamentalist because
they care only for the good results - as they see good.

Moderate religion keeps up a structure that clouds and prevents people being the
secularists they should be and keeps them badly informed about what secularism
really is.

Loyalty to the state which looks after you is what matters. Not religion. If you
are from France and you go to Abu Dhabi you are looked after there by another
law. Liberal religion undermines this merely by existing. No religion serves the
state by teaching its laws and giving it wholehearted support.

Some liberals think that the Catholic Church in the past allowed a broad range
of beliefs and opinions as long as some basics were upheld. The Catholic
liberals complain that the Catholic Church today goes too far in restricting
what priests and bishops and theologians can say. The Catholic answer to that is
that the Church used its infallibility to arrive at the truth and settle the
debates.

The liberals themselves put limits on what doctrines can be denied, doubted or
opposed. Thus they uphold the authority of the Church. They just want the
authority to allow more deviation but they do not want rid of the authority.

A lot of liberals in Catholicism lie about Vatican 2 having opened the door to
liberalism. They engage in distortion about the reason for freedom of thought as
exercised in the Church in the past. What happened was that the Church let
debates take place and then it settled the debate by giving an infallible
answer. The debates were not happening because the Church accepted freedom of
thought but because it needed the debates to see what freedom of thought should
be restricted.

Moderates and liberals are creating an addiction to religion or a need that can
lead to fundamentalism. Indeed believers will tend to be suspicious of any
threats to their belief so the seed of fundamentalism is sown in them.

Liberal religion lies. True Christianity has to be fundamentalist. Liberal
Christians are lying about the true nature of their religion. They are getting
people hooked on it. When people discover the lies they may become the
extremists Jesus meant them to be. Whoever promotes a fundamentalist religion,
even if they are liberals, is dangerous.

Moderate religion looks for plenty of followers and tries to reach out to many
people to make believers of them. It provides them with little or no evidence.
In other words, it is manipulating people to be careless. Faith without evidence
is not faith but feeling. To equate feeling something is true with believing it
is fundamentalism. Its unreasoning.

No religion that conditions children in religious doctrine can be described as
moderate. It is still advocating a method of getting devotion that is dangerous.
It is only luck that ensures a child is conditioned in so-called moderate
religion - the same tactic is used to make a child a devotee of the kind of
religion that believes in destroying other nations and so on.

It is totally false to think that a fundamentalist is one thing and a liberal is
another. A liberal is fundamentalist about some things. A fundamentalist will be
liberal about some things. The fundamentalist for example who beats his
daughters believes that he should have the freedom to do so – that’s very
strongly liberal. The person who wants more sexual freedom in society is less
liberal. Sexual freedom could and should be conducted harmlessly but you can’t
say the same of beating people up. And especially when it’s a brawny brutish
father beating up his fragile daughters.

Many Catholics say that because we have free will we have the power to reject
God and to fix ourselves in that rejection. If that happens we will go to Hell
for all eternity. This is fundamentalism despite being spouted by liberals
because psychologists believe that no decision can be that complete and final.
The doctrine opposes their doctrine. It opposes the very possibility that one
can finally and permanently turn away from the all-attractive God.

The notion of liberals that people only reject a caricature of God is
patronising. It is mad to think that the Muslim interpretation of God and the
Christian one are equally good and inspiring. The liberals are hypocrites if
they say there are no caricatures of God! So what makes them think that their
view is not a caricature? They pick and choose what they want to believe so how
do they know? They won't be guided by evidence but by desire so they cannot
know!

The liberals who make all understandings of the divine equally true and valid
really mean that nobody really rejects God so everybody is really good but just
mistaken or misled. So what is the point of religion then? Why bother promoting
Jesus in Church and not some other God such as Henry James Prince or
Ramakrishna?

Liberal religionists tend to believe that there is no punishing God, but that
God does not make a person pay for their sins. Many of them believe that if you
commit the sin of being a drug addict, God will not send you anything to harm
you but will simply stand by and let you suffer the consequences of your
actions. They deny that this is punishment. But their God is not a God of
justice. Deterring people from evil is fair but is not what justice is all
about. Justice is about treating a person according to whether they have done
good or evil on purpose. Punishment ties in with the idea that you must reward a
person according to their works. If they do bad you give them bad. To hurt them
to deter them from crime or to reform them is not punishing them. A truly just
God will have to punish because if he doesn’t he is guilty of declaring that it
really doesn’t matter if you are a good person or a bad one.

Moderate religion is ridden with disagreement about doctrine and practice and
about ethics. It is plainly man-made for that very reason. It is fundamentalist
for any man-made faith to act as if it has authority from God.

Every liberal religion has its “lunatic fringe.“ It tolerates it. Thus it is
responsible. Religion is not needed as a social structure. We can get community
without religion and pray in the house. An unnecessary system with a lunatic
fringe is to blame for that lunatic fringe despite the hypocrisy that may drive
it to condemn it.

The argument that when a religion or members of a religion do evil that the
religious faith must not necessarily be blamed is incorrect. The argument says
that when a religion supports harmful acts and its members commit these acts
that is a mistake to think that the religious beliefs are mainly or partly to
blame for the actions. But much religion does command harm. It is fundamentalist
dishonesty to deny that.

Moderate religion is really treating religion as man’s word not God’s so it is
not about religion so much as exploitation. Even if we are conditioned by
religion or brainwashed, we are still responsible for letting ourselves be
exploited this way. We will know it deep down.

Moderate religion gives tacit approval for causing division. Instead of us all
accepting one another as people the liberal has to separate from those who are
made of sterner stuff and who insist the religion is to be followed and not
watered down.

Moderate religion is based on irrational thinking and feelings just as much as
religions that espouse terrorism are. Just because one religion does not teach
that we must kill members of other faiths does not mean it is any better than
one that does.

Moderate religion places obligations on its members even if it just to order
them to go to Church at Christmas and Easter. Morality is full of problems. That
is why it is essential that people be given the information they need to make
their own moral choices be it some kind of utilitarianism or whatever.

Religion for the vast majority of followers is more about engaging in sacred
rituals and being part of a religious community than about belief. Even if
somebody reads their Bible and concludes that if we feel God is asking us to
sacrifice our family and kill them we should do it they will not.

Most people who are members of religion tend to be uncomfortable or disapproving
of those who are more religious than they are and/or members of other religions.
They have suspicions about very religious people and people outside their
religion. That shows how they feel about their own deep down. They do not really
think it’s a good thing.

Moderate religion gives us rules we don’t really need. It results in believers
thinking they should do silly things such as baptise their children or hang up
holy pictures.

Even unbelievers and secularists may believe or want to believe strange things.
Perhaps the secularist could insist on abortion on demand even up to birth. If
rational people sometimes give in to the most dangerous and hideous ideas and
promote them, how much more are we to fear irrational people who follow liberal
or fundamentalist religion? For the secularist, knowing things the mundane and
earthly way is what matters. Believers in God agree up to a point but say that
you also need God to tell you things in your heart. That is dangerous for the
information from "God" may be contradicted by information from "God" in the
future and is making a God out of your imagination.

The liberal who says love your neighbour as yourself does not realise that he is
being a fundamentalist. You can do a lot of good for your neighbour while loving
yourself more than anybody. The liberal forgets how much of his morality is
based on the idea: “God says it. He must be obeyed whatever we think about his
commandments.”

Liberals and fundamentalist Christians say that people need a right relationship
with God otherwise their human relationships will be very faulty. They have a
little ditto: “The love of God and your neighbour go together.” This is
fanaticism for it is calling atheists who have successful relationships liars.

Most psychologists will tell you that you must depend on yourself to be happy in
life and not on God or other people. When you are outgoing is is all your work
in the sense that it is you who has to make others drawn to you. So liberals are
fundamentalists for they seek to inflict faith in God on you and obscure your
vision.

Liberals are often people who just water down and lie about their religion’s
dark side. They are really disobedient. They only seem to be helping but they
are not. Disobedience to a religion is really saying, “The religion has such and
such a standard but I will not obey.” The disobedient person of faith is as much
a supporter of an evil faith as the obedient.

The disobedient only look like rebels or people who won’t face the truth. They
cannot be taken seriously. They should find or form a system - even if it is
religious - that suits themselves and in which they can be their true selves.

You are not a true believing member of a religion if you cherry-pick the
teachings that are essential or follow from the essentials. A religion cannot
function if it permits you to do that. Again cherry picking makes you look like
a reel and a hypocrite. People should actually be attracted to the teachings
through the antics of the cherrypicker. The hypocrisy may provoke a desire in
the witnesses of that hypocrisy to be sincere.

It must be assumed that as most people would want the right to be able to make
informed decisions that all would want it. People would agree with, “Its better
to know the truth and have to painfully deal with it than to be deluded and
happy.” Liberals undermine all that. They spread confusion.

The liberals give the fundamentalists an effective example of lying for religion
and over it. They cannot complain about fundamentalist dishonesty.

Belief in Christianity appears innocuous simply because even many Catholic
priests and nuns do not have a degree of conviction that leads them to be
consistent Catholics. If they are good people, it is therefore in spite of their
faith and not because of it. But they are not good in their own inner intent so
degeneration is always around the corner! The faith contaminates whatever good
they do. It is just like how if you set up a charity that fed the poor and
killed their oppressors the evil would contaminate the good you do. Evil that is
mixed with good is more contaminating than outright evil. If you do good and
take a stand against truth you are really trying to leave behind a harmful
legacy of error. The good you do does not make that right.

Evil is part of human nature and always looks for an outlet. The saint and the
murderer are both evil only the first by chance prefers hidden evil while the
murderer prefers to do something. As to the fact of them being evil, there is no
difference. The saint may be happy to see "bad" people suffer and be thanking
God for it. Christians are too eager to say, "It is God's loving will" when
terrible things happen to people. That is not natural.

Good people in a harmful or evil religious system are giving it respectability.
Thus they are indirectly or implicitly very bad. We must not let their charm
sway us to favour their faith or regard it as acceptable.

You hear of gay Catholics who despite Church disapproval and condemnations of
homosexuality still claim to be Catholics and say they will not walk away. This
is really saying that the faith is so justifiable and credible that it would be
a mistake to walk away. That is really giving the Catholic Church credibility in
its condemnations of homosexuality and one is still trying to be an
advertisement for the Church. It looks like the person is too weak to be a
proper Catholic but is trying to be and believes he should be.

The pope is the figurehead of those who would ruin many
human rights such as reproductive rights. Some Catholics call themselves
liberal and contradict the pope. Liberals just want the pope to be nicer
to some people such as the divorced but what use is that when the core system of
Catholicism is a human invention and a toxic one? Liberals are only enabling the
poison.

Instead of supporting their religion, liberals want to destroy it and set up a
counterfeit of it. Their dishonesty only drives more members of a religion to
take a strong stand in its favour against the liberals.

Liberals have their values. The values include equality
and the dignity of the person and concern for those who are suffering or poor.
Liberals sometimes seem to say that they only have faith in these principles.
Others say there is no need for faith for it is plainly obvious that they are
true. Then why are they clouding those core values with silly rituals and
doctrines and Church structures? Why are they clouding them particularly
with honouring evil saints such as Moses and Dominic and vile violence laden
revelations such as those in the Bible? There is actually not a lot about
love in the Bible God's doctrine but there are plenty of threats and violence.

The weeping and grinding of teeth in Hell that Jesus
talks about is said to be the damned regretting not the sin but how much they
suffer for it. They do not hate the sin as such. You might wonder if the liberal
“Christians” who say hating sin is about compassion for the sinner for sin hurts
the sinner are in fact preparing people for a hotspot in Hell! Both the liberals
and the damned just care about side effects of sin not sin!

If Catholicism is a man made religion then it will have
errors. In that case a progressive Catholic does not exist. What you have is a
person using the label who is trying to mend the errors while pretending the
religion is definitely from God. What kind of respect for equality and
dignity is that?

Liberal Christianity is just a heap of man-made religions. Each group has its
own views. It is a form of fundamentalist and idolatry to be part of a religion
like that. Idolatry is a form of fundamentalism and fundamentalism is a form of
idolatry.

Finally

Liberal religion is dishonest, confused, stupid, over emotional and like a
kingdom that is divided against itself, it will not stand. It is only an
advertisement for orthodoxy or extremism. Members depart from religions that go
liberal and end up swelling fundamentalist ranks.

Liberal religion rejects the infallibility of
fundamentalism while acting like it itself is infallible. Anybody can read
a bad scripture or doctrinal text with loads of lines that raise questions about
its ethics and tell themselves it only says good things and that somehow the bad
bits don't mean what they say. But even that person has to admit unless they are
insane, “Nothing is perfect so I cannot be sure that my nice interpretations are
really right. Maybe some of them are not what the author intended at all.”
But that is exactly what the liberal will not admit. They are
self-appointed psychic oracles. The liberal has no moral right to criticise the
infallibilism of her or his fundamentalist rivals. Indeed the liberal is
only a different kind of fundamentalist.

If Catholicism or any religion is a man made religion then it will have errors. In that
case a progressive Catholic (or whatever) does not exist. What you have is a person using the
label who is trying to mend the errors while pretending the religion is
definitely from God.